The one-sayers model for the Extended Crosswise design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Extended Crosswise design is a randomized response design characterized by a sensitive and an innocuous question and two sub-samples with complementary randomization probabilities of the innocuous question. The response categories are ‘One’ with two different answers and ‘Two’ with two answers that are the same. Due to the complementary randomization probabilities, ‘One’ is the incriminating response in one sub-sample, and ‘Two’ in the other. The use of two sub-samples generates a degree of freedom to test for response biases with a goodness-of-fit test, but this test is unable to detect bias resulting from self-protective respondents giving the non-incriminating response when the incriminating response was required. This raises the question what a significant goodness-of-fit test measures? In this paper, we hypothesize that respondents are largely unaware which response is associated with the sensitive characteristic, and intuitively perceive ‘One’ as the safer response. We present empirical evidence for one-saying in six surveys among a total of 4,242 elite athletes, and present estimates of doping use corrected for it. Furthermore, logistic regression analyses are conducted to test the hypothesis that respondents who complete the survey in a short time are more likely to answer randomly, and therefore are less likely to be one-sayers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.225 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".